Rant about liberal news reports

[ExactlyMyPoint]

We all know the answer to this question, but, well, I am just ranting.

How would a liberal news reporter answer this question?

Say there are 500 people in a room, all lined up. A BG takes out his gun and shoots the first person. And every second thereafter, he shoots another person. (He brought plenty of ammunition. Probably bought from Wallie World on sale.) After the 5th shot, someone realizes what is happening and calls 911. By the time the police get there, everyone could be dead.

OR

Say there are 500 people in a room, all lined up. A BG takes out his gun and shoots the first person. And every second thereafter, he shoots another person. After the 3rd shot, someone realizes what is happening and takes out his legally carried handgun and shoots the BG. Someone else calls 911. Now instead of 500 people dead, only 3 people are dead.

Why is the second scenario bad?

OK. I feel better getting that off my chest.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bobcat35]

their brain would shut down if you asked them that. why it might even destroy their entire species just like the borg. we need to test these theories right away.

[BushidoMarine]

We all know the answer to this question, but, well, I am just ranting.

How would a liberal news reporter answer this question?

Say there are 500 people in a room, all lined up. A BG takes out his gun and shoots the first person. And every second thereafter, he shoots another person. (He brought plenty of ammunition. Probably bought from Wallie World on sale.) After the 5th shot, someone realizes what is happening and calls 911. By the time the police get there, everyone could be dead.

OR

Say there are 500 people in a room, all lined up. A BG takes out his gun and shoots the first person. And every second thereafter, he shoots another person. After the 3rd shot, someone realizes what is happening and takes out his legally carried handgun and shoots the BG. Someone else calls 911. Now instead of 500 people dead, only 3 people are dead.

Why is the second scenario bad?

Let me reach down into the bottom of the Port-O-Pot to retrieve a Brady Bunch hat of Loony Lefty "Logic".... Hat on and here we go...

Why you silly little subject..I mean citizen. It is bad because 500 dead victims of both their complacency and our agenda are VASTLY morally superior to some cowboy, vigilante, Dirty Harry wannabe standing over the body of the poor disadvantaged victim he just murdered with his cop-killer, exploding hollow-point loaded Saturday Night Special Investigation Section high-capacity assault weapon. The so-called "bad guy" (as you so heartlessly mischaracterize this poor, underprivileged soul) in situation 1, is as much, or even more of a victim of "gun-culture" than the 500 convenient statistics...oops I mean 'people' that are shot by the gun. He wouldn't have done it if that gun hadn't been there to attach itself to his hand and force him to "act out" by pulling his finger backwards...500 times.

In situation 2 the murder victim (you slander him by calling him a "bad-guy" just because he allegedly shoots 3 stat...er..people) after only killing about 200 or so...was very likely going to enroll in med school, build an orphanage, or provide the endowment to build a counselling center to help Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered homeless, physically challenged animals to overcome centuries of oppression by the white male patriarchial Bourgeoisie, and to teach the carnivorous ones the virtue of a vegan lifestyle. But of course thanks to Mr. 'John Wayne 2.0', this poor soul will never get to do this thanks to this inbred idiot with a hero complex, his weapon of war, and his license to kill.

Situation 2 is also VERY BAAA-AAA-aaa-aaadd because is implies that an individual actually has some sort of "right" to defend their life against those who would take it away. This is of course completely preposterous because any properly educated slave..I mean person knows that our lives belong to, and are protected by the kind benevolence of our government, led by those of us that are progressive, liberal-minded people of correct politics; people who have read some philosophy books and thus know how the real world does, or should, work. The State exists to provide everything the masses need, so any displays of individual action and thought are unacceptable. That is why only the State should have guns...individual ownership could possibly make it difficult to taxate, re-locate, concentrate, re-educate, or exterminate those who are so foolish as to not appreciate the wonderful government that is provided by those of us who selfishly...I mean selflessly work to control..oops...lead the people.

[Ram Rod]

Say there are 500 people in a room, all lined up. A BG takes out his gun and shoots the first person. And every second thereafter, he shoots another person. After the 3rd shot, someone realizes what is happening and takes out his legally carried handgun and shoots the BG. Someone else calls 911. Now instead of 500 people dead, only 3 people are dead.

Why is the second scenario bad?

Why? Because you didn't include the bad guy in the list of dead! 4 dead!

[Ron]

Let me reach down into the bottom of the Port-O-Pot to retrieve a Brady Bunch hat of Loony Lefty "Logic".... Hat on and here we go...

Why you silly little subject..I mean citizen. It is bad because 500 dead victims of both their complacency and our agenda are VASTLY morally superior to some cowboy, vigilante, Dirty Harry wannabe standing over the body of the poor disadvantaged victim he just murdered with his cop-killer, exploding hollow-point loaded Saturday Night Special Investigation Section high-capacity assault weapon. The so-called "bad guy" (as you so heartlessly mischaracterize this poor, underprivileged soul) in situation 1, is as much, or even more of a victim of "gun-culture" than the 500 convenient statistics...oops I mean 'people' that are shot by the gun. He wouldn't have done it if that gun hadn't been there to attach itself to his hand and force him to "act out" by pulling his finger backwards...500 times.

In situation 2 the murder victim (you slander him by calling him a "bad-guy" just because he allegedly shoots 3 stat...er..people) after only killing about 200 or so...was very likely going to enroll in med school, build an orphanage, or provide the endowment to build a counselling center to help Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered homeless, physically challenged animals to overcome centuries of oppression by the white male patriarchial Bourgeoisie, and to teach the carnivorous ones the virtue of a vegan lifestyle. But of course thanks to Mr. 'John Wayne 2.0', this poor soul will never get to do this thanks to this inbred idiot with a hero complex, his weapon of war, and his license to kill.

Situation 2 is also VERY BAAA-AAA-aaa-aaadd because is implies that an individual actually has some sort of "right" to defend their life against those who would take it away. This is of course completely preposterous because any properly educated slave..I mean person knows that our lives belong to, and are protected by the kind benevolence of our government, led by those of us that are progressive, liberal-minded people of correct politics; people who have read some philosophy books and thus know how the real world does, or should, work. The State exists to provide everything the masses need, so any displays of individual action and thought are unacceptable. That is why only the State should have guns...individual ownership could possibly make it difficult to taxate, re-locate, concentrate, re-educate, or exterminate those who are so foolish as to not appreciate the wonderful government that is provided by those of us who selfishly...I mean selflessly work to control..oops...lead the people.

I assume that you had your tongue deeply imbedded in your cheek when you wrote this, but the really sad and scary thing about it is that there are so many seemingly intelligent and well meaning people for whom what you wrote is almost an article of faith.

Ron

[Wilky1121]

I grew up in Seattle, Washington proper. For those familiar with the city, you know what I mean, for those that don't, well, it's basically just about as liberal as you can get within the United States (on a widespread basis).

A somewhat grounded leftist would say that a person executing 500 or so people with a firearm would be a minority event. Logically speaking, they would point out that statistically an individual owning a firearm is more likely to have that firearm used against them or their family in some way (Nevermind that no distinction is made between those that LEGALLY own and operate firearms, and those that simply buy them from their local drug dealer and stash them in the waistband of their jeans.) rather than using a firearm against a BG. I personally am not up to date on firearms accidents and such, but there are numerous accidents that happen and tarnish the public image of firearms as a whole.

Growing up with a minority opinion in my community (Gun's are fine in the right hands), has had a tremendous impact on my opinion of "Gun Control." There are hard realities on both sides of the subject, you have the reality that sometimes kids or other people who shouldn't have guns get ahold of them, or that people use guns irresponsibly. You also have people who use their guns to save their lives or their loved one's lives. Personally I think that those who kill innocents will find SOME way to murder, pillage, exploit, or manipulate those around them, regardless if guns are available as a tool or not. An armed citizen stands a much better chance of combating those individuals than the unarmed citizen, which is why I support our second amendment rights.

It's easy to paint either side as being extremists, but to be honest talking to individuals who are both "Left" and "Right" they have more in common than they do in conflict, the main problem derives from disagreement on how to approach problems.

Back to the main point; a leftist would say that if guns were outlawed to the general public, such an event would be merely a sliver of the percentage of the loss of life that normally occurs due to gun deaths. They would point out that if you own a gun the likelihood of you dying in a gun-related death escalates (which is true, although misleading, correlation does not denote cause.)

All in all Leftist opinions are narrow and misleading, but to be honest far right opinions can be just as misleading (Everyone should own a gun!), at least in my opinion. I can't vouch for every single person, but I believe the majority of gun owners are responsible individuals who would only kill in dire circumstances. Events where the minority effect takes place are sad (such as the recent school shootings), as they undermine the efficacy of our cause. People naturally are reactive and have a knee-jerk response to what happened, which doesn't take the full idea into consideration. I wish we could convince the leftist movement, rather than combat them.

[P7fanatic]

Well I think it was awfully selfish for this 'blood thirsty yahoo' to take it upon himself to try and execute another person that I'm sure had been persecuted throughout his childhood by his father or his classmates or by somebody.
Why else would someone want to line people up and shoot them. So he had troubles. That isn't anything that couldn't have been fixed by some therapy and some meds. But no, there had to be some guntoting maniac that couldn't wait to show off his manhood as he played out his 'cowboy fantasies'. This is just another example of how gunowners don't really care about other people or what troubles they might have gone through growing up or society in general.
But that's the evil of guns.

OK, I said it...............

[press1280]

They would say that unless the person was a undercover LEO,that it would be "risky" for an average CCW carrier to shoot back. He may hit one of the other people lined up for execution. That's more dangerous than the bad guy executing.
Believe it or not, I've heard one or two lefties say that you could "talk," your way out of it, that deadly force is "never" the answer.

[retsupt99]

Some reporter would reply something to the effect of the armed citizen in the crowd seeing the first three getting shot and suddenly (because he has his own gun) becoming 'blood thirsty' and begin helping the BG finish off the crowd...you know, guns can have that effect on people...

[BlackPR]

This thread should be titled "How to hurt your own cause."

Reducing "Leftists" to silly cartoon Characitures alienates them to the point where even if they agree with you, they won't stand next to you on an issue.

There are many, many leftists who agree with our stand on guns, and many "leftists" who carry. But they won't pipe up here even though our common interest is guns... because they've been pigeonholed.

Don't you all see? If you make this a left vs. right issue you *automatically* exclude half the game! If you KEEP it just a guns issue, you'll find a lot of those from left will be fighting right by your side for you to keep your gun rights.

If you want the left to support your cause, you might want to stop acting like you don't.

[P7fanatic]

This thread should be titled "How to hurt your own cause."

Reducing "Leftists" to silly cartoon Characitures alienates them to the point where even if they agree with you, they won't stand next to you on an issue.

There are many, many leftists who agree with our stand on guns, and many "leftists" who carry. But they won't pipe up here even though our common interest is guns... because they've been pigeonholed.

Don't you all see? If you make this a left vs. right issue you *automatically* exclude half the game! If you KEEP it just a guns issue, you'll find a lot of those from left will be fighting right by your side for you to keep your gun rights.

If you want the left to support your cause, you might want to stop acting like you don't.

OK, I guess you're right. Silly me.
I'll try to convince my self that it is possible for anti-gun liberals to look at something and argue with logic rather than emotion.

[micpl]

There are many, many leftists who agree with our stand on guns, and many "leftists" who carry.

Care to support that assertion with any evidence?

You make it sound like we are gaming for a fight by attacking them when, in truth we are responding to their systematic attacks on our constitutional rights.

I don't want leftists to support my freedom, I want freedom loving people to see the light and stop being leftists!!

[bandit383]

This thread should be titled "How to hurt your own cause."

Reducing "Leftists" to silly cartoon Characitures alienates them to the point where even if they agree with you, they won't stand next to you on an issue.

There are many, many leftists who agree with our stand on guns, and many "leftists" who carry. But they won't pipe up here even though our common interest is guns... because they've been pigeonholed.

Don't you all see? If you make this a left vs. right issue you *automatically* exclude half the game! If you KEEP it just a guns issue, you'll find a lot of those from left will be fighting right by your side for you to keep your gun rights.

If you want the left to support your cause, you might want to stop acting like you don't.

Well stated and agree wholeheartedly. Personally, I am in the "Lou Dobbs" camp as an independent. And more and more are...and are more than likely to vote than not vote. If one only thinks uni-directional, whether a rightist or leftist...then you become sheep under that political agenda.

Rick

[BlackPR]

Care to support that assertion with any evidence?

Sure.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs940624.txt

Democrats recast gun control image - The Boston Globe

Dave Kopel on Second Amendment & Election 2006 on National Review Online

reviewjournal.com -- News: Pro-gun Democrats urge party to be sensitive to i...

Concord Monitor - Richardson stands out as pro-gun Democrat

Pro-gun Democrat elected to head party in Ohio | Buckeye Firearms Association

MySpace

The War on Guns: Pro-Gun Democrats Sign <i>Heller</i> Brief

Pro-gun, anti-abortion and fiscally conservative: meet the neo-Dems | World news | The Guardian

Pro-Gun Progressive

Democrats urge party to adopt pro-gun language

SayUncle » NRA Endorses Bredesen

Conservative Democrat

Gun-toting Outkast rapperfeatured at Democrat event

Liberal Democrats SHOULD BE PRO GUN RIGHTS | WesPac | Securing America Community

Meet the Blue Dogs: pro-gun, anti-abortion - and Democrat - Times Online

Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gun Toting Liberalâ„¢ — Slightly left of center… but this blog is DIFFERENT!

Going Down the Road: The Liberal Gun Nut

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

Rule .303: Excessive Gun Control is Inconsistent with Liberal Values

the Gun-Toting Liberal


When you run out reading material there, I have several hundred more.

[micpl]

Sure.
When you run out reading material there, I have several hundred more.

That's a very cute debating tactic, but I'm still waiting for an answer. At least the first couple links you posted re-enforce my point. Although many leftists are Democracts, being a Democrat does not make one a leftist. As I said, I don't want leftists to support freedom, that is an oxymoron. I want them to stop being leftists.

Quoted from your second link...

The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.

Good! If being afraid of the voters causes the Democrats to abandon their base of the hard left and vote with the people, that's wonderful!!